AIR AMOEBA — Vapor from a missile test at a state air force base wafts over the campus Thursday evening. Drifting toward the Von Kleinsmid bell tower, the luminous cloud mixes
with light from a University Avenue streetlamp.
dMHy trojan
Volume XCI Number 47
University of Southern California
Monday March 22, 1982
Kennedy decries Reagan policy
Defends proposed nuclear freeze
By Chris Navarro
In light of the Soviet Union’s recent call for an arms moratorium. Sen. Edward Kennedy ID-Mass), before a packed crowd in Hancock Auditorium Friday, discussed his resolution which seeks a freeze in the production of nuclear weapons in the United States and the U.S.S.R.
An estimated 300 students, who could not be accommodated in the modest-sized auditorium, listened outside via speakers, to the senator who was making his only stop in Los Angeles. Inside, television cameras from several local stations were on hand for the media event.
The senator from Massachusetts received a standing ovation when he took the podium and, throughout his speech, he drew' applause for his arms control demands.
The nuclear freeze resolution, which Kennedy is co-sponsoring with Sen. Mark Hatfield of Oregon, is a response to the Soviet freeze on the deployment of medium range SS-20 nuclear missiles announced by President Leonid I. Brezhnev Tuesday.
Kennedy said that the United States should act on the arms freeze proposed by the Soviet Union.
“Let us use this latest Soviet announcement as an opportunity for progress on a broader scale rather than an excuse for the paralysis of our own policy,” Kennedy said, intensifying his voice. “Instead of simply attacking the Soviet proposal, let us challenge the Soviets to go further, freeze more, to join with us in taking a bigger step.”
The audience applauded when the senator proposed that the United States and the Soviets “stop making propaganda against each other and start genuinely talking peace together.”
Kennedy emphasized that the existing arms race is pushing the world closer to annihilation. He said that the measures being taken by President Reagan to prepare for a nuclear war gives the Soviets cause to be ill at ease.
Planned Reagan budget to cut graduate student aid
“What are the Soviets supposed to think when their spy satellites see streams of cars crawling along the freeways from Glendale, Sherman Oaks, and Westchester heading for the Mojave Desert?,” he asked his amused audience.
“I wish the administration would spend less time preparing for a nuclear war and more time preventing one,” he added.
The senator said that the Kennedy-Hatfield resolution has been criticized because it does not seek arms reduction.
Kennedy speculated that Reagan had not read the proposal, which calls for a major reduction in the exisiting arsenals of nuclear arms.
“The President may say we do not go far enough, but today, the administration is going absolutely nowhere on arms control. They have a weapons policy, but not a peace policy,” he said.
Kennedy accused the Reagan administration of distorting the Kennedy-Hatfield resolution by offering inaccurate statistics to refute it.
“He (Reagan) claimed that it would leave the United States with a 6-to-l inferiority in Europe. Then the President said it might be a 3-to-l inferiority. It is baffling that, on this basic question, the administration cannot get their figures straight. I think they must be having David Stockman add up the numbers,” Kennedy said.
President Reagan has expressed disapproval of a nuclear arms freeze by both the United States and the Soviet Union and has been quoted as saying that the Soviet moratorium is a “propaganda ploy.” Reagan does not see such an arrangement as beneficial to the United States and its allies.
In an i article in the Los Angeles Times, a press spokesman for Reagan was quoted as saying that the U.S.S.R. was moving to “legitimize Soviet superiority.” The White House official said that, through its proposed arms freeze, the Soviet Union would be “free to continue its buildup, to divide the NATO alliance, to stop U.S. deploy-
(Continued on page 6)
By Pauline Marquez
Staff Writer
The budget submitted to Congress by the Reagan Administration on March 10 called for a S9.2 billion cut in student aid over the next five years. Such a measure would have a drastic effect upon all students, especially upon the nation’s graduate students.
President Reagan’s budget proposal, now before Congress, would eliminate half (56 percent) of the present student aid funding for the 1983-84 academic year.
The Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) program faces changes that could take effect as early as this spring.
New restrictions would include the doubling of the origination fee (a fee that is added to the loan when it is dispensed) from 5 to 10 percent. The $30,000 income eligibility cap for the loan would be replaced and eligibility would be limited to that of students with an “unmet need” — a need that will be evaluated after all other financial aid has been applied, including that of potential family contribution.
Another regulation that could be enforced would require borrowers to pay market rate interest betwreen 14 to 15 percent two years after starting repayment, instead of the current 9 percent.
Lastly, there would be the removal of all graduate and professional students from loan eligibility.
Ruth Simmons, assistant dean of the Graduate School, said that the American Council on Education says, “Approximately one-half of all the graduate students receive a GSL.”
Law students, medical students and those seeking doctorates in non-science programs are especially dependent upon the loans.
If Reagan’s budget proposal is passed, the university estimates that it would begin to feel the effects in the fall semester of 1983.
“GSLs are the core of the graduate student’s aid plan primarily because it never asked students to demonstrate financial need,” Simmons said.
In lieu of the GSL axing, Reagan has proposed implementation of the ALAS (Auxiliary Loan Assistance to Students) program which carries a 14 percent interest rate and the immediate payment of the principle and interest while still in school. Only 14 states have agreed to this loan plan, Simmons said. California is not among them.
Looking for ways to cover the anticipated loss of the GSL program, the university has increased the number of teaching assistants, resident adviser positions and fellowships available to graduate students.
Simmons said that doctoral students wrould also be potentially hurt by the new loan regulations. Students involved in doctoral programs undergo rigorous research studies and benefit the most from a fulltime capacity at a university. “Becoming a part-time student because of tuition costs would cut down on the quality of education. This could lead to a real loss of scholastics due directly to the loans’ demise.” Simmons said.
Graduate students in the university’s School of Pharmacy are concerned and have met to discuss appropriate action regarding the change in policy.
Randy Kawamura, vice president of Student Affairs for the School of Pharmacy urges all students to see the need for alarm. “The quality of gradu-
(Continued on page 3)